AMA executive council accountability
#54
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (86)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responding to your continued semantic arguments is a waste of time. You're not interested in discussing the issue. You're too busy insulting people and trying to correct specific language to make it fit your notion of PC. You want specifics -
1). admit that trying to bring the 1,000's of toy drone owners into the AMA was a mistake;
2). separate models from drones by our own definition;
3). Deliberately distance ourselves from the toy owners;
4). Deliberately distance ourselves from the commercial drone operators;
5). encourage the EC to be more responsive to the membership before making major decisions;
6). throw the drones to the FAA wolves, stop supporting them and say publicly we don't support them;
7). Now, IF the membership agrees with this, and the EC does not, then we need to replace them through the process in our bylaws not through insurrection.
1). admit that trying to bring the 1,000's of toy drone owners into the AMA was a mistake;
2). separate models from drones by our own definition;
3). Deliberately distance ourselves from the toy owners;
4). Deliberately distance ourselves from the commercial drone operators;
5). encourage the EC to be more responsive to the membership before making major decisions;
6). throw the drones to the FAA wolves, stop supporting them and say publicly we don't support them;
7). Now, IF the membership agrees with this, and the EC does not, then we need to replace them through the process in our bylaws not through insurrection.
#56
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (86)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The purpose of this is to stop the government intervention into OUR hobby. We didn't do anything to bring this on ourselves except to align with a group of toy owners that have displayed total irresponsibility and that have absolutely ZERO inclination to join AMA or abide by our safety rules. We have to separate from them or go down with them.
#58
I am just adding this to what you said that I agree with:
The issue as I see it, is not really the registration at all
It is rather should we allow the FAA to interpret any and all laws already written
and designed to afford us some degree of protection so we can
enjoy our hobby without undo (that is the word open to interpretation)
harassment.
Or object to their interpretation, because more and more sweeping interpretations may be a coming.
If the FAA has complete and unlimited powers to interpret, regulate, affix penalties etc.
And our lawsuit had no merit against the FAA, would it not behoove the AMA to present
these facts to the membership.
Like:
Hey guys I spoke to the AMA lawyers, here is what they said , Your case is groundless
and here are the reasons why....... or is that to much info for us to handle.
but no, the AMA is proud to announce they are moving ahead with a lawsuit
Smell the air that isn't nitro
or napalm
or victory
Smells like pacification
I asked a person If the rules of the FAA were completely optional would you accept or decline, yet to get a response.
The issue as I see it, is not really the registration at all
It is rather should we allow the FAA to interpret any and all laws already written
and designed to afford us some degree of protection so we can
enjoy our hobby without undo (that is the word open to interpretation)
harassment.
Or object to their interpretation, because more and more sweeping interpretations may be a coming.
If the FAA has complete and unlimited powers to interpret, regulate, affix penalties etc.
And our lawsuit had no merit against the FAA, would it not behoove the AMA to present
these facts to the membership.
Like:
Hey guys I spoke to the AMA lawyers, here is what they said , Your case is groundless
and here are the reasons why....... or is that to much info for us to handle.
but no, the AMA is proud to announce they are moving ahead with a lawsuit
Smell the air that isn't nitro
or napalm
or victory
Smells like pacification
I asked a person If the rules of the FAA were completely optional would you accept or decline, yet to get a response.
#59
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (86)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just adding this to what you said that I agree with:
The issue as I see it, is not really the registration at all
It is rather should we allow the FAA to interpret any and all laws already written
and designed to afford us some degree of protection so we can
enjoy our hobby without undo (that is the word open to interpretation)
harassment.
Or object to their interpretation, because more and more sweeping interpretations may be a coming.
If the FAA has complete and unlimited powers to interpret, regulate, affix penalties etc.
And our lawsuit had no merit against the FAA, would it not behoove the AMA to present
these facts to the membership.
Like:
Hey guys I spoke to the AMA lawyers, here is what they said , Your case is groundless
and here are the reasons why....... or is that to much info for us to handle.
but no, the AMA is proud to announce they are moving ahead with a lawsuit
Smell the air that isn't nitro
or napalm
or victory
Smells like pacification
I asked a person If the rules of the FAA were completely optional would you accept or decline, yet to get a response.
The issue as I see it, is not really the registration at all
It is rather should we allow the FAA to interpret any and all laws already written
and designed to afford us some degree of protection so we can
enjoy our hobby without undo (that is the word open to interpretation)
harassment.
Or object to their interpretation, because more and more sweeping interpretations may be a coming.
If the FAA has complete and unlimited powers to interpret, regulate, affix penalties etc.
And our lawsuit had no merit against the FAA, would it not behoove the AMA to present
these facts to the membership.
Like:
Hey guys I spoke to the AMA lawyers, here is what they said , Your case is groundless
and here are the reasons why....... or is that to much info for us to handle.
but no, the AMA is proud to announce they are moving ahead with a lawsuit
Smell the air that isn't nitro
or napalm
or victory
Smells like pacification
I asked a person If the rules of the FAA were completely optional would you accept or decline, yet to get a response.
#60
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Responding to your continued semantic arguments is a waste of time. You're not interested in discussing the issue. You're too busy insulting people and trying to correct specific language to make it fit your notion of PC. Please, spare me the sanctimony and hypocrisy. You opened your mouth with the first insult in post 25, acting just like the other infantile one, and then again in post 43...so ya know, lets not play that game? and You want specifics -
1). admit that trying to bring the 1,000's of toy drone owners into the AMA was a mistake; nobody will do that as it wasn't a mistake. Odd thing to hope for, an apology, as if that will change anything.
2). separate models from drones by our own definition; Doesn't matter what WE define...that's the FAA's call, and they made it. No turning back time.
3). Deliberately distance ourselves from the toy owners; That's hilarious, and elitist in the same breath. What a hoot. Breaking news, we're all toy owners, then again it's popular here for some to classify themselves as other than toy owners, by virtue of building and how much they spend, and not flying foamies.
4). Deliberately distance ourselves from the commercial drone operators; Now you're making sense, but I don't recall this huge push by the AMA to advocate for commercial use overall. Perhaps you meant that for Amazon?
5). encourage the EC to be more responsive to the membership before making major decisions; Again, making sense here. There is already a mechanism in place for feedback to the EC, and that's via Leader members,AVP, and VPs. Direct communication is always available, and they have conducted surveys of the membership as well. Not a perfect process, but there is no such thing. Also, what is "major" to one person or group might not be for another, so it's not a perfect science to pick which is. In this case, even if the membership was polled and they said "ban drones", it wouldn't have made a difference in the world, the FAA made the decision.
6). throw the drones to the FAA wolves, stop supporting them and say publicly we don't support them; Not going to happen. If for no other reason they they would never ever ever hear the end of it from people like say, you and the others, who would probably go into apoplexy complaining about all the past work done, and money spent etc etc. I'll admit I'm presuming there, but given the prior comments, it's a safe bet.
7). Now, IF the membership agrees with this, and the EC does not, then we need to replace them through the process in our bylaws not through insurrection.
Completely agree. Now the issue becomes who steps in to replace the old guard. Are there lots of people involved now who are eligible to run for office, and are they even willing to do it. If it's anything like the most recent VP elections, the answer is no, not really. And to that, we might what to dig deep on the reasons why that is the case.
1). admit that trying to bring the 1,000's of toy drone owners into the AMA was a mistake; nobody will do that as it wasn't a mistake. Odd thing to hope for, an apology, as if that will change anything.
2). separate models from drones by our own definition; Doesn't matter what WE define...that's the FAA's call, and they made it. No turning back time.
3). Deliberately distance ourselves from the toy owners; That's hilarious, and elitist in the same breath. What a hoot. Breaking news, we're all toy owners, then again it's popular here for some to classify themselves as other than toy owners, by virtue of building and how much they spend, and not flying foamies.
4). Deliberately distance ourselves from the commercial drone operators; Now you're making sense, but I don't recall this huge push by the AMA to advocate for commercial use overall. Perhaps you meant that for Amazon?
5). encourage the EC to be more responsive to the membership before making major decisions; Again, making sense here. There is already a mechanism in place for feedback to the EC, and that's via Leader members,AVP, and VPs. Direct communication is always available, and they have conducted surveys of the membership as well. Not a perfect process, but there is no such thing. Also, what is "major" to one person or group might not be for another, so it's not a perfect science to pick which is. In this case, even if the membership was polled and they said "ban drones", it wouldn't have made a difference in the world, the FAA made the decision.
6). throw the drones to the FAA wolves, stop supporting them and say publicly we don't support them; Not going to happen. If for no other reason they they would never ever ever hear the end of it from people like say, you and the others, who would probably go into apoplexy complaining about all the past work done, and money spent etc etc. I'll admit I'm presuming there, but given the prior comments, it's a safe bet.
7). Now, IF the membership agrees with this, and the EC does not, then we need to replace them through the process in our bylaws not through insurrection.
Completely agree. Now the issue becomes who steps in to replace the old guard. Are there lots of people involved now who are eligible to run for office, and are they even willing to do it. If it's anything like the most recent VP elections, the answer is no, not really. And to that, we might what to dig deep on the reasons why that is the case.
The purpose of this is to stop the government intervention into OUR hobby. We didn't do anything to bring this on ourselves except to align with a group of toy owners that have displayed total irresponsibility and that have absolutely ZERO inclination to join AMA or abide by our safety rules. We have to separate from them or go down with them.
If the call is to go forward and fight fight fight, then be prepared to pay for that right by way of additional membership dues. Fighting the govt isn't cheap or easy. I think the AMA needs to be thinking about compromise right now. If they can feed over our numbers to the FAA (with our perimission), work for that. If they can get specific written agreements on the 400 foot issue, get waivers for that in writing. Also, get all or as many of the fields in that 30nm zone back open. If the closer ones in need to go all electric or park flyer to stay open, that might be the way to go. Compromise sucks, but that might be what is needed. Pure speculation I know, but I don't see going backwards to try to change something that's already a done deal. We are simply not fighting from a position of strength.
#61
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (86)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not elitist to make a distinction. The TOY that the kid next door got is NOT the same as my 104" Mustang. Nothing elitist. And yes, it was a mistake. Not one requiring an apology but an adjustment in operating philosophy.
#63
"There is no stopping government intervention in the hobby, it's here forever, that's just how it is."
Well who is being a gloomy gus now?
So if there is no stopping it let's accelerate it yeah that is the ticket
Let's give up give in get it over with sooner rather than later
So it was a slow tidal wave or fast it was visible yet we couldn't negotiate around it or under it or over it?
Do we really think fight back is the right way to go?
Do you really think rolling over is the right way to go?
What would get you to fight for your self, is there anything that would make you ressit?
If the registration is the sum total of what we have to do?
What, I thought your course of action would prevent further actions by the FAA?
You mean there may be more in store for us.?
And then what ? Worry about it then? Roll over again?
Registration ain't the problem it's FAA re interpretation it just happens to be something easy to do for so many
$5 bucks some numbers a tattoo on your head easy right?
And I thought fighting the government was easy and cheap?
Compromise ? remember compromise would i require disagreement with the great and all powerful FAA
and possibly conflict with lawyer and briefcases and such.
Are you advocating that the AMA release are info to the FAA (without our permission) I believe they probably have already
or will soon but are you endorsing as some hostage money in exchange for the permission to fly.
And do you support flying over 400 feet what do you think is the maximum height to fly at?
Do you want to be able to film the in flight movie in the airliners with a drone?
The call to go forward has already gone out in the form of the AMA lawsuit whether it is only a half-heart pacification we will know soon enough/
But lemmings can stay home
Well who is being a gloomy gus now?
So if there is no stopping it let's accelerate it yeah that is the ticket
Let's give up give in get it over with sooner rather than later
So it was a slow tidal wave or fast it was visible yet we couldn't negotiate around it or under it or over it?
Do we really think fight back is the right way to go?
Do you really think rolling over is the right way to go?
What would get you to fight for your self, is there anything that would make you ressit?
If the registration is the sum total of what we have to do?
What, I thought your course of action would prevent further actions by the FAA?
You mean there may be more in store for us.?
And then what ? Worry about it then? Roll over again?
Registration ain't the problem it's FAA re interpretation it just happens to be something easy to do for so many
$5 bucks some numbers a tattoo on your head easy right?
And I thought fighting the government was easy and cheap?
Compromise ? remember compromise would i require disagreement with the great and all powerful FAA
and possibly conflict with lawyer and briefcases and such.
Are you advocating that the AMA release are info to the FAA (without our permission) I believe they probably have already
or will soon but are you endorsing as some hostage money in exchange for the permission to fly.
And do you support flying over 400 feet what do you think is the maximum height to fly at?
Do you want to be able to film the in flight movie in the airliners with a drone?
The call to go forward has already gone out in the form of the AMA lawsuit whether it is only a half-heart pacification we will know soon enough/
But lemmings can stay home
#64
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
[QUOTE} There is no stopping government intervention in the hobby, it's here forever, that's just how it is. And if you think it all happened because of the AMA not distancing itself from a DJI Phantom, well, I think you are missing the huge big pic. This was a slow moving tidal wave that we got wrapped up in. [/QUOTE]
Regardless whether or not this situation was avoidable, does ANYBODY believe that the AMA took EVERY STEP they possibly could have in order to RESIST...?
Regardless whether or not this situation was avoidable, does ANYBODY believe that the AMA took EVERY STEP they possibly could have in order to RESIST...?
#65
No I think most of the steps
encouraged greater and less safe drone usage
But dam it, if those drone ad's in MA aren't purty!
combatpig if your interested in some of the misinformation about our so called AMA insurance
let me know
It's eye opening
encouraged greater and less safe drone usage
But dam it, if those drone ad's in MA aren't purty!
combatpig if your interested in some of the misinformation about our so called AMA insurance
let me know
It's eye opening
Last edited by jeffrey solomon; 12-29-2015 at 08:57 PM.
#66
Join Date: May 2012
Location: jonesboro,
AR
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This issue does not seem to be the fault of the FAA, they are responsible for insuring the safety of commercial and general aviation. Nor does it seem to be the fault of the AMA, they have been obviously trying to negotiate this issue for a long time. However, it does seem to be the fault of pilots (fixed wing, rotary, quad, etc) who have flown their models in ways that seem obviously dangerous (eg, flying near airports, in the flight paths of commercial or general aviation planes, copters, etc). They likely make the situation worse when they advertise their risky behavior by posting it on the web. I bet that if all of us flew safely and conscientiously avoided risk, there would be no need for FAA licensing.
#67
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
This issue does not seem to be the fault of the FAA, they are responsible for insuring the safety of commercial and general aviation. Nor does it seem to be the fault of the AMA, they have been obviously trying to negotiate this issue for a long time. However, it does seem to be the fault of pilots (fixed wing, rotary, quad, etc) who have flown their models in ways that seem obviously dangerous (eg, flying near airports, in the flight paths of commercial or general aviation planes, copters, etc). They likely make the situation worse when they advertise their risky behavior by posting it on the web. I bet that if all of us flew safely and conscientiously avoided risk, there would be no need for FAA licensing.
#68
I agree that there have been many AMA flyers that have flown where they should not have flown from AMA fields. I know several and cautioned them about
the consequences to little avail. When they do it off site and are snagged there should be penalties imposed on them, but whether they should be imposed by their club or the AMA is not for me to say at this time, haven't really thought about that one yet.
The FAA is certainly responsible for general aviation full scale and model. And they will interpret their own rule as they see fit, however the
AMA and other concerned groups participated in the FAA creation of the rules did they not?
Was not the AMA consulted? Did they not have input?
Or was their participation just for the cameras?
Was not an "ad hoc" agreement reached between the AMA and the FAA in drafting the 2012 Rules for Model Aircraft?
Now the FAA wants to interpret and extend what was agreed to under the heading of safety?
It is not the registration I believe we should take issue with but the FAAs unchecked ability to interpret, modify, alter and change legislation they
produced, agreed to and signed off on. If we do not take issue and pursue this issue then the
legislative procedure is superfluous. Because the FAA is going to change it any time, any way with out accountability.
There is nothing obvious about the AMA position about drones. In fact if you know the reason for the purchase of most drones and the manner they are flown in, I think ,a reasonable person would find a glaring contradiction in the AMA. Drones are not flown at clubs, and if they are flown at clubs or with permission then they are not a problem. Most are flown for exploration of prohibited and inaccessible areas.
How can the AMA reconcile that?
As far as the AMA being absolved of fault either through omission or commission , based on a long history of negotiations this statement is unsupported by
the facts of today.
the consequences to little avail. When they do it off site and are snagged there should be penalties imposed on them, but whether they should be imposed by their club or the AMA is not for me to say at this time, haven't really thought about that one yet.
The FAA is certainly responsible for general aviation full scale and model. And they will interpret their own rule as they see fit, however the
AMA and other concerned groups participated in the FAA creation of the rules did they not?
Was not the AMA consulted? Did they not have input?
Or was their participation just for the cameras?
Was not an "ad hoc" agreement reached between the AMA and the FAA in drafting the 2012 Rules for Model Aircraft?
Now the FAA wants to interpret and extend what was agreed to under the heading of safety?
It is not the registration I believe we should take issue with but the FAAs unchecked ability to interpret, modify, alter and change legislation they
produced, agreed to and signed off on. If we do not take issue and pursue this issue then the
legislative procedure is superfluous. Because the FAA is going to change it any time, any way with out accountability.
There is nothing obvious about the AMA position about drones. In fact if you know the reason for the purchase of most drones and the manner they are flown in, I think ,a reasonable person would find a glaring contradiction in the AMA. Drones are not flown at clubs, and if they are flown at clubs or with permission then they are not a problem. Most are flown for exploration of prohibited and inaccessible areas.
How can the AMA reconcile that?
As far as the AMA being absolved of fault either through omission or commission , based on a long history of negotiations this statement is unsupported by
the facts of today.
#69
My Feedback: (11)
Sorry, but I don't buy it... the slippery slope started with computer programmable radios that allowed you to automate and mix functions.
It started when the pin board disappeared and 72mhz was not needed. The aircraft had better control and could not be knocked out of the sky by simply turning on another radio tuned to that frequency.
It started with mechanical gyros on the tails of helicopters, that progressed to accurate computer chip gyros from the gaming industry.
It really started with airplanes and helicopters using Lithium Polymer batteries with high power density, quick discharge and recharge rates.
Everything that it took to put a multi-rotor in the air evolved from model airplanes and helicopters. As the proud parents of the multi-rotor, you want to throw the baby to the crocs. Nice parenting skills.
It started when the pin board disappeared and 72mhz was not needed. The aircraft had better control and could not be knocked out of the sky by simply turning on another radio tuned to that frequency.
It started with mechanical gyros on the tails of helicopters, that progressed to accurate computer chip gyros from the gaming industry.
It really started with airplanes and helicopters using Lithium Polymer batteries with high power density, quick discharge and recharge rates.
Everything that it took to put a multi-rotor in the air evolved from model airplanes and helicopters. As the proud parents of the multi-rotor, you want to throw the baby to the crocs. Nice parenting skills.
Last edited by on_your_six; 12-30-2015 at 04:42 AM.
#70
If they're going to make big $$ interest fly low, where do you think that leaves non-commercial users and the AMA's 130,000 or so paying members? Yep. Down low. And our voice is going to be limited against Amazon and Walmart and their armies of lawyers.
Altitude separation is probably the most reliable way to keep sUAS/UAS apart from manned aircraft, and I cannot see how FAA does not use that tool. I think FAA is trying to show us the future, with the acknowledgement to stay below 400 as part of the registration process. It's just a matter of time before they formally codify it.
Last edited by franklin_m; 12-30-2015 at 04:58 AM.
#72
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
"There is no stopping government intervention in the hobby, it's here forever, that's just how it is."
Well who is being a gloomy gus now?
So if there is no stopping it let's accelerate it yeah that is the ticket
Let's give up give in get it over with sooner rather than later
So it was a slow tidal wave or fast it was visible yet we couldn't negotiate around it or under it or over it?
Do we really think fight back is the right way to go?
Do you really think rolling over is the right way to go?
What would get you to fight for your self, is there anything that would make you ressit?
If the registration is the sum total of what we have to do?
What, I thought your course of action would prevent further actions by the FAA?
You mean there may be more in store for us.?
And then what ? Worry about it then? Roll over again?
Registration ain't the problem it's FAA re interpretation it just happens to be something easy to do for so many
$5 bucks some numbers a tattoo on your head easy right?
And I thought fighting the government was easy and cheap?
Compromise ? remember compromise would i require disagreement with the great and all powerful FAA
and possibly conflict with lawyer and briefcases and such.
Are you advocating that the AMA release are info to the FAA (without our permission) I believe they probably have already
or will soon but are you endorsing as some hostage money in exchange for the permission to fly.
And do you support flying over 400 feet what do you think is the maximum height to fly at?
Do you want to be able to film the in flight movie in the airliners with a drone?
The call to go forward has already gone out in the form of the AMA lawsuit whether it is only a half-heart pacification we will know soon enough/
But lemmings can stay home
Well who is being a gloomy gus now?
So if there is no stopping it let's accelerate it yeah that is the ticket
Let's give up give in get it over with sooner rather than later
So it was a slow tidal wave or fast it was visible yet we couldn't negotiate around it or under it or over it?
Do we really think fight back is the right way to go?
Do you really think rolling over is the right way to go?
What would get you to fight for your self, is there anything that would make you ressit?
If the registration is the sum total of what we have to do?
What, I thought your course of action would prevent further actions by the FAA?
You mean there may be more in store for us.?
And then what ? Worry about it then? Roll over again?
Registration ain't the problem it's FAA re interpretation it just happens to be something easy to do for so many
$5 bucks some numbers a tattoo on your head easy right?
And I thought fighting the government was easy and cheap?
Compromise ? remember compromise would i require disagreement with the great and all powerful FAA
and possibly conflict with lawyer and briefcases and such.
Are you advocating that the AMA release are info to the FAA (without our permission) I believe they probably have already
or will soon but are you endorsing as some hostage money in exchange for the permission to fly.
And do you support flying over 400 feet what do you think is the maximum height to fly at?
Do you want to be able to film the in flight movie in the airliners with a drone?
The call to go forward has already gone out in the form of the AMA lawsuit whether it is only a half-heart pacification we will know soon enough/
But lemmings can stay home
#73
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
ohh...juicy behind the scenes secret treasure troves of AMA insurance information. 60 minutes expose soon to follow? By all means, post it up for all to see...if its that eye opening shouldn't all the folks get to see it? Would I be spoiling the punch line by noting the coverage is excess/secondary?
#74
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
[QUOTE} There is no stopping government intervention in the hobby, it's here forever, that's just how it is. And if you think it all happened because of the AMA not distancing itself from a DJI Phantom, well, I think you are missing the huge big pic. This was a slow moving tidal wave that we got wrapped up in.
Regardless whether or not this situation was avoidable, does ANYBODY believe that the AMA took EVERY STEP they possibly could have in order to RESIST...?[/QUOTE]
Well, I think this is one of those can't win situations they find themselves in. You can't really dismiss this by saying "regardless if the situation was avoidable"...it simply wasn't. But, based on all of the press releases the AMA issued which clearly indicated their displeasure at the process (which they were criticized for issuing), as well as them filing legal actions, I'd have to say they sure did try to resist. And they have been criticized for that as well, naturally.
#75
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The trouble making drone flyers are [from our vantage point] an unstoppable force that could only do us harm by association. The only control we could have exercised was to completely distance ourselves from them. We needed to make it abundantly clear to the FAA that what we do as traditional RC Flyers has nothing at all to do with models that are equipped to be flown beyond our unassisted view.